Can an "all of the above" energy policy really work?

I second you on this, Justin. Sarah Palin's speech last night really gave me the fits when she tried to show she knew something about energy policy. I think she is trying to put us back 30 years instead of looking towards the future. Maybe that's where Alaska is but I don't think that's where we want to be as a country.

"Then again, conservation has its limits, so conservation and drilling and nukes would seem to make sense."

Don't tell us that renewables (wind, solar, biofuels....) have no future. By the time the dubious rewards of "Drill here! Drill now!" are realized, renewables are likely to be a robust component of the energy mix.

I'm not dismissing renewables. There's just not as dramatic a contrast between Obama's and McCain's statements when it comes to renewables (although Obama does attach dollar figures to some of his alternative-fuel plans, while McCain does not).

Justin:

There might not be a dramatic contrast between Obama's and McCain's statements on renewables, but there is when it comes to voting: http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/08/23/mccain-energy-summit/

(thinkprogress is admittedly a left leaning site, so let me try to bring this to the center a bit).

It appears that McCain is unwilling to create tax preferences for, or mandate requirements for renewables, or restrictions. Rather, if he wants to government to get involved, he'd rather it get involved in proven methods (in this case drilling, nuclear). Let the other methods develop as they will on their own.

whereas Obama wants to create tax incentives for renewables and place restrictions or taxes on more common, dirtier technology.

I don't think either of them are against an all of the above approach. Rather McCain seems against funding for, or mandating reliance upon unproven technologies, while Obama believes funding these emerging technologies is the better path.

MBirch,

That is an excellent observation. Working quite heavily in a tangentially related field, I can tell you that many companies are moving toward developing alternative fuels from an economic standpoint. In part, some of the old industries are regulated technologies and have limited upside potential, and in yet other ways, it is good strategy.

Justin's reference to the blurb by Goolsbee brings up an interesting point. Recall that as prices spiked up to astronomical levels we got to a point of demand destruction. In economic terms, it is that point at which the cost of something exceeds its value to the consumer. The very same phenomenon will happen with regard to oil supply. When the cost of retrieving it from ever more difficult places exceeds its value or the cost of alternative fuels, it will cease to be sought after.

Ultimately, what this means is that government should neither unduly subsidize nor tax the energy markets. In the end, it seems to me that a free energy market would automatically drift toward the most efficient balances of capital expenditure based upon expected return.